Get News & Views Updates
Progressive Community
The press releases posted here have been submitted by
America's Progressive Community
For further information or to comment on this press release, please contact the organization directly.
Most Popular This Week
Today's Top News
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Center for Biological Diversity Kevin Bundy, (415) 436-9682 x |
EPA Capitulates to Timber, Biomass Industries on Global Warming Pollution
Decision to Delay Regulation of Wood-burning Power Plants Will Result in More Greenhouse Gas Pollution
The Environmental Protection Agency today
announced that it plans a three-year delay in regulating wood-fired power plants
and other “biomass” incinerators under Clean Air Act provisions aimed at
reducing greenhouse gases. The agency is granting the three-year exemption
despite extensive scientific information showing that the large-scale burning of
trees and other wood products can increase global warming pollution and worsen
climate change.
“The EPA has caved in to months of political pressure from the timber and biomass industries and their allies in Congress. Sadly, the result will be an increase in greenhouse pollution, not a decrease,” said Center Senior Attorney Kevin Bundy. “There is no scientific or legal justification for treating carbon pollution from burning trees differently from other kinds of carbon pollution. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide — the climate can’t tell the difference.”
The announcement comes partly in response to pressure from members of Congress, and partly in response to a timber industry request for reconsideration of the EPA’s initial decision to treat so-called “biogenic” greenhouse gas emissions the same as other emissions for purposes of the Clean Air Act’s permit programs. Under the approach announced today, permit requirements that would have taken effect July 1 will be deferred for three years. According to the EPA, the exemption will apply not only to facilities burning wood and agricultural products for energy, but also to wastewater-treatment facilities, livestock operations, landfills and ethanol factories.
The EPA claims that the delay will give it time to consider the relevant scientific data. But the agency also announced today that it intends to allow biomass burning as a form of greenhouse gas emissions-control technology in fossil-fueled facilities.
“The EPA’s claim that it needs more time to weigh the science is disingenuous — they’ve had plenty of time, and the science is clear,” Bundy continued. “The EPA’s Orwellian suggestion that biomass pollution is a form of pollution control makes it look like the agency has already made up its mind to ignore the science.”
The Center petitioned the EPA in 2010 to correct its erroneous assumption that CO2 from large-scale biomass power plants is “carbon neutral.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


2 Comments so far
Show AllSome claims in this Center for Biological Diversity press release are incorret. If biomass burned for energy is replaced with new growth, there is no net CO2 released. If biomass results from thinning of overcrowded forests, forest health can be improved. In any event, burning fossil fuel is as or more damaging.
The atmosphere currently contains about 800 billion tons of carbon, about 10 billion NET tons are added per year. The increase is from FOSSIL carbon. Carbon that is part of a natural carbon cycle does not add to the total atmospheric burden...it is recycled. For biomass that has a 90 day growing season it is recycled every 90 days and, in fact, most plants sequester carbon in the soil thru their root systems. For example mixed perennial prairie grasses will sequester about a third of a ton of carbon per acre per year for an indefinate period of time.
Fossil carbon that is being dumped into the atmosphere is most definately a problem. Carbon that is recycled through biomass is probably the most viable solution we have. The answer to coal plants is torrefied biomass in place of coal.